Piers Morgan: Hey, let’s amend the Bible

posted at 9:01 am on December 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

And not just the Bible, but Piers Morgan wants to amend the Constitution, too. It’s a darn good thing that the CNN host needed work badly enough to emigrate to a place that he finds so disagreeable. What did we ever do without him?

I have no issue with the concept of amending the Constitution — and neither did the founders, who accepted that it might prove flawed for later use. That’s why they included the mechanisms for amending the foundational document of American law within it, mechanisms that have been used 17 times since the original passage of the Constitution. We have even had one amendment repeal another (the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th). If Morgan wants to press for an amendment repealing the Second Amendment in whole or in part, he just needs to convince two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it, and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it. Have fun storming the castle!

His insistence on amending the Bible amuses more than it shocks, because it’s impossible to take Morgan seriously. He’s needling Rick Warren, nothing more, and attempting to provoke him into a heated exchange. Warren is simply smarter than Morgan, and takes a pass.

If Morgan was serious, then it’s still less offensive than humorous, but the joke is on Morgan. If you believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, then you know that it’s absurd to suggest that it be “amended” based on the latest human fashion, which is what Warren explains. God is, after all, unchangeable — or He wouldn’t be God at all. It would be equally absurd to think that anyone would base their faith on the amended product, a Gospel According To Piers, if you will, unless people decided that Piers is either God Himself or a new prophet, in which case he’d probably have a better gig.

And if you don’t think that the Bible is the unerring word of God … why would you care what’s in it at all?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

there are so many fossil records of many lost creatures and we can now put the puzzle together and trace a path of almost every living being to its evolutionary path. Its true the further we go back in time the hazier the picture is, and so it seems that the first life its still a mystery. scientific explanations are not even theories, they are merely hypothesis that are hard to prove or disprove. anyway, I prefer those hypothesis to silly and childish christian myths of creation.

Oh, now (randomly) you bring up Sandy Hook and suggest some sort of ownership
over that issue.
Now you can stuff it, you self-righteous blowhard.

verbaluce on December 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I’m going by what I saw that awful day, from the trolls here and how horrid they were.

We were trying to make sense, totally aghast at the assault. But liberal trolls came here to needle us and attack us–coming on relentless–refusing that much-touted liberal ‘mercy’ to any of us while we hurt.

Those trolls sought to take advantage in a dark time–for three days.

The archives are there, for any who want to review.

If you want to disclaim ‘self-righteousness’, go look in a mirror and see yourself, verbaluce. We don’t ‘own’ Sandy Hook, but liberals seek to claim the moral high ground after that horror.

You have done the same around here for a year, and the posts you wrote are around in the listings of others. Eventually, people will be reminded of all what you have written.

Liberals tend to be horrid people, and you’re one of them.

Your own words speak to you and yourself far better than anything I could write.

Ah, I’m home from work just in time to point out that in science, it’s incredibly difficult for something to be a “law” instead of a “theory,” which is how it should be. We are constantly expanding our horizons and abilities, and science should be about constantly attempting to falsify theories (and laws / facts) to disprove them.

But yes, evolution is a theory that, of course, is open to debate. I welcome an alternative hypothesis.

Scientific theories do not become scientific laws, or vice versa. They each describe two separate things.

Scientific laws are factual observations usually derived from mathematical modeling; they merely distill empirical results into concise verbal or mathematical statements that express a fundamental principle of science – for example, gravity attracts, force equals mass times acceleration and so on. Theories are the causal explanations behind what creates these laws and observations of nature. Theories also combine laws into a framework that is greater than the sum of its parts.

It’s like claiming an apple seed won’t become an orange, therefore it is not a fruit seed.

a well proven theory does not need to be called such.
do you call gravity, “the theory of gravity”?
nearly all biologist and most doctors and pharmaceutics researchers take evolution as a fact.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Umm, no. Certain theories remain exclusively in the theoretical designation because they are physically impossible to replicate. Evolution being one of those theories. Before any theory can be acclaimed as a “Law” it has to be replicable.

Truism #1098 about me: I ALWAYS do my best proofreading AFTER hitting submit.

lol

I do sort of have a good excuse today. I’m working on 3 pieces at once and educating Rupert Murdoch and his man about gun laws. Hopefully, we’ll have hurt the last of the idiocy “When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?” THAT Tweet drove me nuts.

Sure there is: theory. You’re equivocating (wrongly) the common usage of the term (meaning similar to hypothesis) with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is “just a theory” when talking about science, just like Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are “just theories.”

As a common example, what many people think of and what’s been popularized as “string theory” should really just be called string hypotheses. The same cannot be said of evolution or gravity.

God has made manifest what may be known of him in creation. Therefore every man is without excuse who refuses to give the creator the honor he deserves. And that is what it is. The denial of God is the refusal to give Him the honor due him as creator.

“The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” A close Hebrew translation is “The fool hath said in his heart I want no part of God.”

Umm, no. Certain theories remain exclusively in the theoretical designation because they are physically impossible to replicate. Evolution being one of those theories. Before any theory can be acclaimed as a “Law” it has to be replicable.

SWalker on December 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

naaa, evolution is observable in creatures with a much shorter life cycle than ours, such as bacteria. get a petri dish and add some poison to it. generation after generation, the bacteria will evolve some resistance to that poison.

what you are asking is proof of evolution in larger species such as ourselfs… that comes from fossil records, and dna analysis.

Pardon my ignorance on evolution, but are we talking about how species, over time, adapt physiologically to their environments or the transfer of one specie into a wholly seperate other specie? Thanks.

You can look it up yourself in any dictionary or science book. You can trying to claim that laws trump theories but the simple matter is that you have no idea what either term means in science or how they relate to each other. Instead of telling me to “stuff it” and going neener-neener, please educate yourself.

I fully understand. I sang in choirs, groups, solo, etc and lead services in churches from McLemore St. in Downtown Memphis, TN to Stratford-on-Avon, England for 30 years. I always strive to give my “Utmost for His Highest”, but, being human, I sometimes fall short.

Pardon my ignorance on evolution, but are we talking about how species, over time, adapt physiologically to their environments or the transfer of one specie into a wholly seperate other specie? Thanks.

Maybe. But I think most take it as “the best theory that we have going right now…” which hasn’t been falsified in 200 years (despite some’s best attempts)

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM

they think like out of religious necessity. there are countless theories out there that are not challenged and branded as “theories” with so much passion as this one.
science by itself has its paradigm shifts that correct or refine previous theories. religious dogma is just poisoning this process.

LAW
An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

THEORY
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

Pardon my ignorance on evolution, but are we talking about how species, over time, adapt physiologically to their environments or the transfer of one specie into a wholly seperate other specie? Thanks.

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM

we talking about how “the transfer of one specie into a wholly seperate other specie”.
take a certain breed of bacteria and submit it to different evolutionary pressures, and over time and generations, you will manage to create a different species.

they think like out of religious necessity. there are countless theories out there that are not challenged and branded as “theories” with so much passion as this one.
science by itself has its paradigm shifts that correct or refine previous theories. religious dogma is just poisoning this process.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 6:34 PM

That’s my point. With real science, theories are constantly challenged and people constantly attempt to falsify the theory. And a real scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, which evolution clearly is.

My point is that science is constantly changing and being challenged when new facts present themselves. Religion forces people to not accept that scientific knowledge in 2012 is far superior to that from 2000 years ago.

Law
)A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

Theory
) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

That page has a list of various definitions for each term. Trying to cherry-pick what you want from it won’t work.

From that same page, after the professor gives the definition list:

Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that “law” and “theory” are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what’s the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics — Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a “transitory law, a law in waiting”. There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither “better than” nor “above” a theory.

Your own source says exactly what I’ve been tyring to explain to you nicely.

we talking about how “the transfer of one specie into a wholly seperate other specie”.
take a certain breed of bacteria and submit it to different evolutionary pressures, and over time and generations, you will manage to create a different species.

That’s my point. With real science, theories are constantly challenged and people constantly attempt to falsify the theory. And a real scientific theory needs to be falsifiable, which evolution clearly is.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 6:39 PM

you mean, a real scientific theory must be verifiable with experiments(or observations)? if so i agree.

you mean, a real scientific theory must be verifiable with experiments(or observations)? if so i agree.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 6:45 PM

No, more then that. I mean a theory must not only be verifiable and must be able to be replicated, but that it must also have a way for it to be dis-proven, and people must attempt to disprove it.

There are several ways to falsify the theory — the easiest being to prove that there is a mostly static fossil record. That is, that as you dig deeper, fossils are mostly the same, no matter how far down you dig (well, until you run out of fossils). Others would be to prove a creation occurred.

Okay. Bring me a live Tyrannosaurus Rex. I can show you a picture of a round Earth, live from the Space Station, if you wish.

Evolutionary chain. How much larger do the organisms get that still replicate evolution of the interspecies kind? Does this only start and end with bacteria or does it go further up in terms of more complex species of living things?

What these rich, well-guarded, liberal punks like Morgan don’t quite understand is that even liberals who don’t own guns don’t like the thought of their neighbors being disarmed and their neighborhoods consequently becoming “gun free zones”.

Like the quirky Three Wheeler Morgan, the Piers Morgan also seems to have some fundamental flaw in its design. Though not immediately obvious like the other British Morgan, it has become evident to everyone that the Pier’s design flaw is a disorder of its operating system. CNN, the Piers current owner, may soon grow weary of the sanctimonious performance and persistent backfiring of the Piers and decide to trade-in the Piers for a better model. I’d like to be the first to suggest that CNN procure a different Morgan, the exemplary “Morgan of the Fairchild”, which I would be more than happy to test drive for CNN (at no charge, mind you) so as to facilitate a prompt change in their lineup.

Evolutionary chain. How much larger do the organisms get that still replicate evolution of the interspecies kind? Does this only start and end with bacteria or does it go further up in terms of more complex species of living things?

anuts on December 27, 2012 at 6:56 PM

at least you admit evolution is a process in bacteria?
it goes up the chain, you probably can observe evolution in small multicellular creatures with short generational cycles as well.
the problem is that large creatures have long generational cycles and any experiment would take more than our life times to complete. so we can observe only the variance of species through the fossil record.

Me first, boys. Replicate evolution for me. I want to watch some primordial ooze become a four-legged fish. I’ll wait.

kingsjester on December 27, 2012 at 6:56 PM

That would be pretty cool. I said earlier, I had some questions about evolution, namely if we assume evolution accounts for ooze evolving into us, we should have a ton of fossils of showing this slow progress, and also tons of natures mistakes… species that evolved parallel to others but we wiped out because they didn’t adapt as well. I wouldn’t think it would be linear. And why is there only one sentient species on the planet?

That’s not saying that I disagree with the theory of evolution, and I do think we will continue to accumulate a lot more information and maybe someday answer the more existential questions. It certainly is more plausible to me then the biblical answer.

That’s not saying that I disagree with the theory of evolution, and I do think we will continue to accumulate a lot more information and maybe someday answer the more existential questions. It certainly is more plausible to me then the biblical answer.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Yes but in order to do that; the scientific community has to show some skepticism towards evolution, and that is so not going to happen. “Settled” science has become the new religion and politics.

No, I don’t have any faith in it. It may or may not end up being true, I’m not very vested in the answer either way. I’m saying it’s the most likely, I’d take odds on it if a bookie called, but beyond that, I can accept that we don’t know, I probably won’t know in my lifetime, and that it does not really impact my life.

DNA simply cannot be produced without a designer. A very intelligent designer.

davidk on December 27, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I don’t buy that either, we see DNA adapt over generations to promote more desirable and better adapted offspring.

the problem is that large creatures have long generational cycles and any experiment would take more than our life times to complete. so we can observe only the variance of species through the fossil record.

Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

any way, you are now not exactly an evolution skeptic because I assume you accept micro evolution as a proven science. you are now a but an “macro-evolution” skeptic skeptic?

anyway, the link i gave you i am not sure it fits macro or micro evolution because 40000 generations its lots of generations. If you read it, there says the bacteria evolved “citrate-eating” capability. that is kinda growing a new stomach in larger species.

at least you admit evolution is a process in bacteria?
it goes up the chain, you probably can observe evolution in small multicellular creatures with short generational cycles as well.
the problem is that large creatures have long generational cycles and any experiment would take more than our life times to complete. so we can observe only the variance of species through the fossil record.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I can only admit ignorance. The subject has never really interested me that much honestly. I’m perfectly comfortable in defering to you and your evidence however. At least for sake of argument. I also, through my ignorance, don’t understand why this subject seems to come up during theological and/or creation debates either. Does the proof of one negate the other?

I don’t buy that either, we see DNA adapt over generations to promote more desirable and better adapted offspring.

Timin203 on December 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM

What we see is the same DNA being replicated over and over.

Aside from mutating, the DNA in a species that has developed over time has no new information. A species that survives though adverse conditions had the genes in it to survive. It did not develop any new information.

And the $64,000 question, where did the information come from in the first place. No environment that is known to exist at any time can produce the right kinds of amino acids and allow those amino acids to come together in the vast amounts of coherent information needed to produce life.

any way, you are now not exactly an evolution skeptic because I assume you accept micro evolution as a proven science. you are now a but an “macro-evolution” skeptic skeptic?

anyway, the link i gave you i am not sure it fits macro or micro evolution because 40000 generations its lots of generations. If you read it, there says the bacteria evolved “citrate-eating” capability. that is kinda growing a new stomach in larger species.

nathor on December 27, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Actually it didn’t evolve “citrate eating capability’ Ecoli already had that ability. There was already a pathway for that ability. The only difference is bacteria could now using it in aerobic condidtions whereas before it was only during anaerobic conditions. I don’t think that is a species change, but a mutation and thus is micro biology..

“The bacteria could use citrate in aerobic conditions if a gene regulator that normally turns on the citrate transporter only in anaerobic (non-oxygen) conditions now losses a control function and now turns the citrate transporter on all the time. This is the equivalent of a door being jammed opened all the time so that it ceases to be a means of controlling what comes into the cell under different conditions. This however is a loss of function, i.e. degeneration, caused by the loss or disruption of genetic information. It is not a gain in complexity. It is not a gain in new information and neither is it a gain of a new function”